Subject: [PEPPERMINT] potenntial charter for PEPPERMINT

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:05:43 -0500

Folks ..we had a successful BOF in Vancouver in order to progress the work
towards a full charter by the IETF it is necessary to reach consensus on a
charter.

I have a proposal for a charter here below. I welcome comments public
private etc.

PROPOSED CHARTER FOR PEPPERMINT

The IETF has been working on various aspects of Multi-Media Interconnection
among administrative domains. 

ENUM is specifically chartered to develop protocols that involve the
translation of E.164 numbers to URI's. 
 
SPEERMINT has been chartered to develop best current practices among
real-time application service providers and how such services interconnect
across administrative boundaries.

These forms of interconnection will require various forms of data to be
exchanged among administrative domains outside the normal scope of
establishing various SIP sessions. 

The IETF has, in the past done, significant work on data exchanges among
various network elements. PROVREG and NETCFG being the most prominent recent
examples.

Data exchanges to facilitate Multi-Media Interconnection are typically
between various Client User Agents and Registries containing mappings of
phone numbers to URI's, policies surrounding admission to points of network
interconnection and various types of trunking data.  In addition there is a
specific need for redistribution of Registry data to various types of
network databases.  

The proposed PEPPERMINT working group will build upon the knowledge and
expertise of the PROVREG, ENUM and SPEERMINT working groups. The goal of the
WG is to find a provisioning solution for interconnection to be ultimately
used by SPEERMINT. The working group may also reuse elements of RFC 4114 if
possible.

The final work product(s) from this working group will be based upon XML.
   
Additionally, bias will be given to using, HTTP/REST, HTTP/XML-RPC, or
HTTP/SOAP.

The working group will draw upon expert advice and ongoing consultation from
the ENUM, SPEERMINT and PROVREG working groups.

PROPOSED GOALS AND MILESTONES

Requirements for Interconnection data exchanges.       July 08 

Provisioning of Interconnection data registries.       Sep 08

Provisioning of Interconnection data caches.           Dec 08 

Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:14:16 +0100

Please see below a comment from OPS-DIR member David Harrington. 

Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of David Harrington
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:12 PM
To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [OPS-DIR] [PEPPERMINT] potenntial charter for PEPPERMINT

Hi,

A Google search shows NETCFG to be an open-source GUI-based application
for configuring networks. I would be very concerned if the charter calls
for a solution "biased" toward a vendor-specific offering, even if the
vendor uses open-source and the MIT license, since we are supposed to
develop vendor-neutral standards, and biased != neutral.

If the intention was to reference NETCONF, then I have a concern that
the expressed bias is to favor a non-mandatory-to-implement "transport"
for NETCONF. I agree that the line expressing a bias for certain
solutions should be removed.

I would not object to a line expressing a constraint for solutions that
leverage existing IETF standards for certain aspects, such as security.
But I'm not sure I know what is to be delivered well enough to know how
existing standards could be leveraged.

Overall, I find the charter wording to be too ambiguous to adequately
describe the scope of the work to be done. "find a provisioning solution
for interconnection" does not seem sufficiently focused to identify the
expected deliverables. Is this WG chartered to produce a protocol, some
data models, functionality to manage caches? I'm just not really sure
what is being proposed as deliverables, and would be hard pressed to
know when the WG drifted off-topic or completed their work.

I think the charter wording and scope needs to be tightened
significantly to make this engineering-ready.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]